Sorry for the corny clip… but who doesn’t love some James Franco, right?

I posted it, because I feel that from it we can reflect upon the power that the poetic use of language and meaning (in any art form) can have to convey precepts and affects in a truly immanent way; but also because it can serve as good starting point for me to tackle one of the premises in Deleuze’s philosophy which has been hardest for me to fully digest, specifically, Deleuze’s statement of writing for “future un-born readers”.

We were first introduced to this idea while speaking about the rupture of these non-state philosophers with the traditional conception of language and meaning within their discipline, specifically the conception of a true attainable essence typical of rationalist philosophy. I was originally confused by this statement of Deleuze, because I had originally associated similar “post-structural” reinterpretations of language (I use quotation marks, because I know how much Sam hates the loose use of terms with a “post” prefix) with the idea that the acceptance of ambiguity and poetic elements in communication could lead to a more direct relation with the intimacy and subjectivity (a complex and “constantly-becoming” subjectivity of course) of our fellow men; that by reinterpreting the use of language we could go past the categories of false fluidity that have constantly obstructed (with a false aspiration for clarity) our spontaneous relationship with the existence in and around us. On the other hand, this “talking to un-born readers” reminded me of the similar statement made by Adorno at the end of the Cultural Industry book, which I always found to be a very elitist academic positioning, spawned from a very traditionally Marxist dichotomic view of true and false notions, that doesn’t really reflect the basic essence of a true process ontology approach. He even seems to state it clearly in this passage:

“I think there’s a public for philosophy and ways of reaching it, but it’s a clandestine sort of thinking, a sort of nomadic thinking. The only form of communications one can envisage as perfectly adapted to the modern’s world is Adorno’s model of a message in a bottle, or the Nietzschean model of an arrow shot by one thinker and picked up by another”
-On philosophy

We must think of what it means to write in the ideological framework of process ontology. Is the notion of man as “constant becoming” a statement that places us in a particular place in space and time? I know that when we were talking about Hume and pragmatism, we said that in these philosophies there was a direct “resistance to the present”, or resistance to false fluidity of the present, but does that make us look into the future? Or does it just make us re-think of our approach to the present?
When Delueze talks about “reaching future-readers” is he being literal or is he referring to the idea of a subject that is not fixed in any time, a state of being that is immanent with all times of reality, a being that exist in a more truer truth.

Does immanence exclude imminence?

“you don’t write with you ego, your memory, and your illnesses. In the act of writing, there’s an attempt to make life something more than personal, to free life from what imprisons it”
-On Philosophy

This is just an initial reflection, from which I want to come back to, but I do think that the idea of prophecy, expressed in James Franco’s sexy voice (speaking as Allen Ginsberg – i forgot to mention), can really help us to understand that the space/time dilemma in Deleuze’s writing cannot be resolved by mapping it within a traditional teleological conception of time. I think that in some sense Deleuze is trying to fulfill the initial aspirations of scientific thought, by completely going against it’s path. He is trying to attain that communication which is timeless, which can arrive at prophecy, which can arrive at Truth, which can be in contact with a true essence, even if this seems like a direct contradiction to everything else that he has been saying. I believe he wants to talk to the reader of today and tomorrow. He wants to create a vessel of meaning that, like a hypothetical Lynn structure, can adapt itself to the movement inherent to the spiral of time drawn out by Nietzsche. The only possible architecture for this type of vessel depends on poetry, not as literary form, but as a reinterpretation of the fixed meanings and of the dynamic possibilities of human communication.

-Alexander Chaparro


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: